Social Commentary

Article - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25899047-23289,00.html

Man begs court: allow me to starve
Nicolas Perpitch | August 08, 2009
Article from: The Australian
PERTH quadriplegic Christian Rossiter will continue searching for ways to travel to Switzerland to die if his request to starve to death is rejected by a court.
The case could be decided within a week after West Australian Chief Justice Wayne Martin yesterday fast-tracked a hearing on the matter to next Friday.
Mr Rossiter, 49, is a spastic quadriplegic who requires full-time care. He is fed nutrients and hydrated through a tube.
A former rock climber and bushwalker, he sustained severe spinal injuries after being hit by a car in 2004 while riding a bicycle. He has described his life as a living hell and wants his carers to stop feeding him so he can die.
His first choice had been to fly to a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland but that holds a legal risk that anyone who helped him could be charged with assisting a suicide.
Mr Rossiter's carer, Brightwater Care Group, has asked the WA Supreme Court for a declaration that it can continue feeding him when he has expressly requested that it stop.
The case is being closely watched by the legal fraternity for the potential precedent it could set over whether someone should be force-fed, and the implications for suicide.
In court yesterday, Mr Rossiter's lawyer, John Hammond, requested a bedside hearing for his client to give evidence.
Mr Hammond said Mr Rossiter's enormous suffering would otherwise be "unwittingly sanitised" if his evidence were presented in a statement.
"Despite his body failing dramatically, he is a very intelligent man," he said.
Chief Justice Martin said the only factual issues that may arise were mental incapacity and whether Mr Rossiter had been fully informed of the course of action he wanted to take and its consequences.
Mr Hammond told the court Mr Rossiter was being advised of the consequences, while Brightwater lawyer Jeremy Allanson SC said he did not intend to present evidence on mental incapacity.
Asked by Chief Justice Martin whether he would seek a cross-order preventing Mr Rossiter being fed if Brightwater's application were upheld, Mr Hammond said that was likely.
Outside the court, Mr Hammond said Mr Rossiter was clear in his wishes.
"That he no longer be fed, that he be allowed to die in peace," he said.
"He is still contemplating if anyone will take him to Switzerland to be euthanased immediately. He no longer wants to live."
On Thursday, Mr Rossiter said he was a prisoner in his own body.
"My choice is to die. I'm a rock climber so I have no fear of death, just pain. I only fear pain, severe pain," he said.
Western Australia's Right To Life Association has argued Brightwater would be given the equivalent of an exemption from a murder charge if it were prevented from feeding Mr Rossiter.
Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke said starvation would be "state-sanctioned torture" and repeated his call to legalise euthanasia.
"It is illegal in Australia to provide the appropriate drugs that would give Chris a peaceful and humane death," he said.
The Hong Kong-based Health and Lifestyle Channel wants to set up a 24-hour webcam on Mr Rossiter if his feeding is stopped.
The channel's chairman and founder, Robert Chua, said it would be part of a debate on euthanasia, which Dr Nitschke is flying to Hong Kong to participate in. Mr Chua said he had not spoken to Mr Rossiter about the idea.









Commentary: Should Euthenasia be allowed?

Imagine lying on a bed knowing that you are going to die in a few months. Imagine lying on the bed being fed through a tube. Imagine lying on the bed dependant on everybody around you. Imagine lying on the bed suffering in pain and misery.

In such a scenario most people would not want to live however euthenasia, or mercy killing, is still against the law in many countries. The question that arises, however, is why. Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to live or die? Why are they not allowed to die in dignity rather than suffer in pain? There are many reasons for not having euthenasia legalized but two reasons stand out from the rest. Firstly it devalues human lives and secondly euthanasia if allowed can lead to a situation where wanting to die will not be a matter of one’s own choice.

Allowing euthanasia might be sending out a wrong message. By allowing euthanasia, we will be sending out the message that it is better to be dead than sick or disabled. Essentially to a disabled or terminally ill person, this means that their lives are not worth living. This will lead to a situation where the disabled and sick will become frustrated with their lives and also want to end it, leading to more and more people killing themselves or even to a situation where normal people kill these people. However every human life is precious and every life lost is one too many. Euthanasia will lead to a mindset in which people will think that the sick and disabled should die and it therefore should not be allowed.

Euthanasia, if allowed, may lead to situation whereby it is not voluntarily. If euthanasia is allowed, many people might die, not because they want to, but because they are forced to. Those concerned may come under pressure to end their lives. The pressure may come from the family who regard the sick person as a burden and would pressurize him to end his life. Similarly a person who thinks he is being a financial burden might want to end his life. Pressure many also come from just legalizing euthanasia as mentioned in my previous point. Also as it is expensive to provide treatment for the terminally ill, doctors might pressurize the patient to die or even purposely kill them in order to minimize costs or free up beds. There is no way of judging whether the decision to die was the person’s own and therefore euthanasia should not be legalized as pressure from family, friends and even the doctor may play too big a part in the decision.

However euthanasia is considered by many to be a humane option that will help end ones suffering and let one die with dignity and not having to be cared for by nurses. Many people will rather die than suffer so much pain. Not only that a person should have full freedom with regards to what he should do with his life, even if it includes ending it. What this people not take into account is that euthanasia is essentially murder and human life is sacred and under no circumstances should it be taken. Also the decision to die should not be made by the sick or disabled person himself as his decision may affect many lives including those of his friends and family. Modern medicines and treatments reduce the pain and sufferings to a great extend, therefore there is no need for euthanasia.

Historically euthanasia has never been allowed in most societies. History has taught us that there is no place for euthanasia in our world and that is why there are only 2 countries where it is legal today. If euthanasia has almost never been allowed in the thousands of years of human history, why should it be allowed now? In fact as I have explained, euthanasia has no place I our society. So if I was that terminally ill person, I would still not go for euthanasia.